Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



72bikers[edit]

Blocked as a non-AE action by Bishonen. Sandstein 08:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 72bikers[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Neutral_point_of_view :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Undid a revert by Waleswatcher and reinstated a bizarre (and almost nonsense) edit that I undid here [[2]] which was made despite objections to the exact wording he used. To be fair we have all been a bit lax over there with the DS, but this is blatant as it is not even well written (and indeed is not even factually accurate according to 72 bikers previous version). And not wholly supported by the sources (indeed as written a blatant misrepresentation of them). It is (in fact) (in my opinion) vandalism (for the purposes of trolling), and a 1RR breach to boot.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [3]
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[[4]]

Discussion concerning 72bikers[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 72bikers[edit]

Slatersteven edit summary today.
Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?[5]
There is no Dr jones in the article so not very clear what he was trying to say.
Context
Slatersteven claimed this source does not list all of the weapons used so OR using it.[6]
Slatersteven claimed this sources was about mass murder and not mass shootings so OR using it.[7]
The 3rd source used [8] There are many more but I did not want to overburden the article with overkill, but can provide if needed.


AR-15 Talk page comments yesterday.
  • "On the grounds it does not list all of the weapons used in all of the shootings" Slatersteven [9]
  • "On things like case 5 which says Semi auto rifle, but dose snot specify type" Slatersteven [10]
  • "Slatersteven the chart defines 4 weapons types semi-automatic handguns, rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. The same as the study." 72bikers [11]
  • "Slatersteven there are tools provided that also allow the ability to filter the chart for specific stats, as well a list and link for the sources of every shooting so there is no guessing nor OR" 72bikers [12]
  • "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's hence trying to draw definite number form this sources is OR." Slatersteven [13]
  • To further support the statistics, "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research"[14]. From 1984 to 2018 in the last 35 years only 14 mass shootings used a AR-15."
But as you point out "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's" I will address your concern to resolve this issue. -72bikers [15]


Article edits
  • Slatersteven's last edit yesterday [16]
  • My edit to address his concerns yesterday [17]
  • Slatersteven's edit today [18] with his edit summery "Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?" I honestly I am not sure what he is saying.
  • Waleswatcher's right after removing Slatersteven's edit and blanking all of this content [19] with a edit summery "You cannot start a sentence with "Though", and the information here is mostly redundant with the first phrase of this section (and already very well cited). Furthermore)"
It is not entirely clear what he is referring to, but if I had to guess "While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns" But this has nothing to do with the content removed it is about gun killings in general and not about mass shooting content and RS removed.
Todays article talk page (Slatersteven "Why was not just providing his direct quote not doing this?" today on the article talk page. [20])
  • My edit after Waleswatcher restoring the content he blanked and addressing Slatersteven concern raised and WW "You cannot start a sentence with "Though".[21]
Waleswatcher recently has blanked content and not discussed it on the talk page as seen toady. [22], [23] -72bikers (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]

I said at the ANI I was unsure what to do. I have no idea where to find the remedies, Also I included the discretionary sanctions awareness information [24], they are aware DS is in place. So I am not sure what you are asking for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine close it, I really cannot figure out how to report the user, and so an edit that is blatant trolling stands. I will not post here anymore as it is pointless.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


OK how does it misrepresent the sources

1. (also a mild BLP violation (assuming the edit means what I think it means)) the study was by Fox and DeLateur (not just by Prof Fox), in addition the study has no links to the mother Jones source (as the edit seems to imply).

2. the Mother Jones source is just a list of incidents it contains no mention of "very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred". Nor does Prof Jones say anything in it

3. One of sources for the phrase "Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time." does not say that, it says military style semi auto rifles (in fact it does not say 25 percent of the time, it is also out of date which is another issue altogether). neither of the other two sources for that claim say it.

But as I said it is so badly written it is hard to follow exactly what is being said about what, hence why I say it is troling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note the edit has now been reverted by another edd precisely because [[25]] "RV an illegible edit", it was a nonsense edit designed to make a point. So maybe it should have been battleground conduct I reported them for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Now I admit (as I did from the start) that many of us breached DS, and I had not reported any of that. It was the trolling nature of this breach of DS I felt actionable, not the 1RR breach. I cannot even fathom the mentality behind it other then being a deliberate slap in the face to any ed who has disagreed with him. It was a willful act of childish vandalism, that is what I find unforgivable, and why I have raised it here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This [26] represents the problem, not one issue. No where do I say that I have final say. There is no attempt to justify or explain the edit he made, just (what is in effect) a strawman. As I said this is not about 1RR but a general tone of PA's, poor editing and general disrespect to anyone who does not share his POV.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Waleswatcher[edit]

72bikers has just violated the 3RR rule at Mass shootings in the United States. Diffs: Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]

link to the 3RR board report: [31]

Edit warring seems to be an ongoing pattern, and what's worse is a continuing refusal to accept the norms of wikipedia editing. 72bikers continually makes edits that are ungrammatical, poorly formatted, riddled with errors, and simply confusing to the reader. When challenged, they post walls of text [32] [33], aggressively berate other editors [34] [35], and generally display battleground behavior. They have forbidden other editors from posting on their talk page [36] [37], which creates a situation where their behavior can only be discussed on talk pages (where it doesn't really belong) or on noticeboards like this one. Personally, I think a topic ban is due. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Here and here and again here, after I post on something you immediately follow up and try to claim I'm the problem. This looks like WP:HOUNDing. Please stop. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Springee[edit]

I want to point out that Waleswatcher isn't exactly an innocent party in this case. I'm sorry to see that 72biker violated the 3RR rule but WW's own editing on this and the related AR-15 article has been disruptive and counter to consensus building. 72biker was likely, and rightly, frustrated that WW would come in, make edits or reversions without regard for talk page discussion then only days later decide to join the discussion. 72biker needed the warning but part of this is due to the poor editing behavior of WW. WW has been recently reported for disruptive editing by myself and at least one other editor. They come here without clean hands. Springee (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

These topics are heated ones and I've tried to be patient with all participants since becoming involved, out of sympathy for that. I got involved with these pages mostly out of concern for the quality of edits that 72bikers had been inserting. I may have been harsh in my criticism, but I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is at its best when major edits are work-shopped at talk before going live and 72bikers does not participate readily in that process, often throwing out tangentially related text-walls or mass-revising their previous comments that have already been responded to, all while failing to provide any constructive response to proposed changes. I will note that my concerns are not primarily a content dispute. I don't agree with Springee on a lot of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues on these articles, but they are very willing to discuss at talk and build consensus when disagreement occurs, and as a result we've been able to make progress toward improving the articles. Disagreement on Wikipedia is fine. But disruptive behaviour is not. And with 72bikers' tendency to make unreasonable demands of other editors, their generally weak grasp of grammar and syntax, their haphazard use of talk page and their tendency to ignore anything they don't want to hear, I really think they're a prime example of an editor whose competence is questionable. This is an editor who said that the page about mass shootings was, "not a gun article," in an edit summary in which they removed a contentious source that was under discussion at talk. In short, I'd suggest a topic ban for firearms related articles, widely construed, would be appropriate at a minimum. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter[edit]

Isn't the edit a violation of consensus required before restoration restriction? insertion by 72biker, reversion, reinsertion by 72biker. Slatersteven I think the remedy you're looking for is the DS remedy under-which these page specific restrictions are done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, if you can explain how the edit is a clear misrepresentation of sources that can also be something that could get a topic ban, especially/if there is a pattern of doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning 72bikers[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I agree with Sandstein. We can't really figure out if an edit adheres to NPOV or not anyway. You'll need to get consensus for inclusion/exclusion of the material on the article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
User was notified of the gun control DS under WP:ARBGC in March. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a WP:1RR restriction with a 'consensus required' clause visible at the head of Talk:AR-15 style rifle. Perhaps that is what User:Slatersteven is asking for enforcement of. But strict application of the 1RR might fall on the heads of a number of people who have edited in the last three days. As the filer states above, "To be fair we have all been a bit lax over there with the DS.." EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • As Ed says, the 1RR restriction seems to be ignored on that page, and not only by 72bikers. In lieu of blocks at this point, maybe best to close with a reminder of the 1RR restriction, and warnings to those who have violated it (which, at a glance, would appear to include both 72bikers and Slatersteven). MastCell Talk 19:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that seems fair. Lord I wish 72bikers would be more careful in their edits and more organized in their thoughts and comments. Their heart is in the right place, I know that, but they are going to have to watch it, and think twice before clicking "Publish changes", because next time--if there is one, on this board or somewhere else--they might not meet so much mercy. (As for Slatersteven, I AGF their work too, and while they are more organized than 72bikers, policy-wise, this very report here proves they also need to be more sharper.) Drmies (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: The 1RR restriction — if any? — on the article is kind of moot, as I have just blocked 72 bikers for 3RR violation, per Waleswatcher's report at the 3RR board (permanent link). 72 actually made five made four reverts in 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 02:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC).
  • Closing, since nobody wants to take action. Sandstein 08:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani[edit]

No action. Sandstein 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nishidani[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_reminded :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
[38] A highly uncivil edit, with personal attacks, a bad faith accusation, unbecoming language and general unpleasant and intimidating phrases and tone. Completely unprovoked by anything but the fact that I undid his edit, and disproportionate. All of that in an area which is sensitive enough without editors sowing animosity, especially if those editors have been specifically warned not to do that (see most specifically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani).
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
Nishidani has been a regular guest here from early stages onwards, with topic bans, blocks, and warnings like the one cited above from archive 200, and even a few self-imposed periods of penitence which failed to last long.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I haven't seen Nishidani around in a while, but he unfortunately has not mended his bad ways. His inflammatory and insulting language, consciously or not intended to intimidate his opponents, is unacceptable on this project, and especially in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

I tried to reason with him on his talkpage,[39] but he only digs himself in deeper,[40] so instead of arguing or getting angry, I decided to just bring it here and let the community decide if that was an appropriate edit. I so informed him. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Since I have conceded the point in the discussion, this report is clearly not for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in the discussion, and it is a shame you should put forward such a bad faith accusation. As you can see on Nishidani's talkpage, I consider this a behavioral issue, and as such it falls within this forum's discretionary sanctions, and I ask the community to give its opinion regarding Nishidani's behavior in view of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as stressed in WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Black kite Your accusation that this post is to "remove an opposing editor" is a bad faith assumption, and as such is not appreciated. I have interacted fruitfully with Nishidani over the years, but his tone is intended to intimidate and makes working in the already loaded ARPBIA area unnecessarily harder and he has been warned for that several times already. Almost all his comments turn any issue into a battleground, and it is time the community puts a stop to that. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Black kite If any statement an editor happens to disagree with is called "moronic", "stupid", "backwards" etc. etc., year after year and on article after article, then it becomes evident that these are personal attacks on any and all opponents for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in argument, just that they are veiled as though they are addressing the content, but really they aren't. Especially since all those comments contain additional references to the editor (in this case me) like "you have a POV", "you don't check sources", "you don't know English" etc. etc. I can not but agree with Sandstein, that Nishidani's edits are intended to manipulate discussions, and that in a most unpleasant and disruptive way. See the comments of Jonney2000, Icewitz and E.M.Gregory, who also feel the same way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Calton I think everybody here is well acquainted with the concept of "unclean hands". However, in the case I have reported here, my hands are completely clean. Please do not try to obfuscate the issue. The issue is not my behavior, rather Nishidani's. Who is not willing to mend his ways, and continues to disrupt discussions with his unpleasant and unrelated putting down of his fellow editors. How would you like it if every edit of yours (not you yourself, God forbid, just every second edit you make) is called "stupid", "obviously made without looking at the sources" or "based on your lack of understanding of English (we all know that Berkeley graduates don't speak English all that well, now do they)"? Debresser (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@RolandR My original complain was very short. Later replies to other editor's comments (like this one), don't count towards the word limit. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Nishidani[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

I set about

Meaning? Debresser will revert me on an I/P issue (I added content to two pages on August 22, and in both cases Debresser removed it. I.e. also at Jerusalem here). He will contest my reasoning, threaten me repeatedly on my page ([41][42], [43],), admit I am correct, and then ask that I be sanctioned for my behaviour. The only intelligible sense to this erratic attritional time-wasting havoc is, 'I will cause you problems, even if you are right, because, when you edit, you require my consent here on the talk page.’ It's not the first time Debresser has indulged himself in this kind of of weird shenanigans. In reverting on different pages my two contributions, on the same day, he was patently trying to disrupt my work here. WP:Boomerang per WP:Harass.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments in excess of 500 words again removed as an admin action. @Nishidani: you may be blocked you if you continue to make comments that exceed the word limit. Sandstein 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
.Sorry about that. I thought vaguely that the 500 word rule referred to each single response. I made a calculation and see that even the text you left breaks the rule and that you had been indulgent in not excising, as would be appropriate, the excess wordage. So, as a matter of rule compliancy I've elided to come under the limit. Unfortunately, the part where I contested your readings was removed. I resolutely deny, for the record, that a generalization about bad editing using a plural can be construed as a personal aspersion. (494 words) Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz. I can't reply per above. But admins should compare my remarks with all remarks in that thread. It is not opinionable that the Balfour Declaration was marginal to the creation of Israel. That is the informed historical 100% consensus.(39 words:494+39=533, apologies) Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

There is no misbehavior in Nishidani's response which rises to the level of justifying Debresser opening this AE request. It appears to me that it's an attempt to use AE for BATTLEGROUND purposes, to win a content dispute, and is therefore a frivolous misuse of AE.
I believe both of these editors have appeared on this page numerous times, and I have no clear memory (because of the number of appearances) of whom I've agreed with and disagreed with in the past. Being therefore essentially neutral, I've edited the article in question and placed my justifying comment on the talk page, but that edit is not connected with the opinion above; i.e. I've got no dog in this fight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde[edit]

Posting here, as I was once involved in an argument of sorts with Nishidani. Nishidani's behavior is not ideal: phrases such as "This moronic statement was reinserted by Debresser" should be avoided, and it's not good form to say something like "I'm a native speaker therefor I speak English better than you" (aside from personalizing something, it's also faulty reasoning: many non-native speakers I know have a far superior command of English than many native speakers I know). But this is far from the level of incivility necessary to trigger an arbitration enforcement sanction, and I see no reason to take action here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, by pointing out at great length your background in the subject, you're missing my point, which is simply that you need to moderate your language. It is possible to be both correct and rude; and it is possible to be unpleasant without violating policy. Food for thought. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Calton[edit]

  • User:Sandstein: Nishidani has a record going back to 2007 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area.
  • And Debresser has a record going back to 2009 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area.[44]. Perhaps your research should have included that.
  • User:Sandstein: According to the AE log, the user has already had two one-month topic bans.
  • According to the AE log, Debresser has racked up four topic topics of varying lengths, along with a couple of blocks for violations. Perhaps your research should have included that.
  • In light of Debresser's track record, I'd call that "fact-based opinion". --Calton | Talk 18:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently the metaphor of "unclean hands" is unfamiliar to User:Sandstein. Or the actual definition of the word "aspersions". Has he considered doing any research on those? --Calton | Talk 06:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

As a genius who sometimes writes moronic text, I know very well the difference between my text being called moronic and myself being called moronic. In fact the difference is exactly that which separates criticism of edits (allowed) and criticism of persons (not allowed). Nishidani has my blessing to use insulting words about my text if he notices any words of mine that deserve insult.

Another thing. People who are engaged in disputes in ARBPIA often come here in the hope that they can rid of a pesky editing opponent. Unfortunately the filtering system is very imperfect and on the margin between obviously valid cases and dubious cases there are many which could go either way depending on which administrators are around and how they are feeling today. So this is a type of roulette that can be won by playing often enough. I don't understand why administrators assume that reports are made in good faith for the love of the encyclopedia when, as in this case, they obviously are not. Zerotalk 01:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To Sandstein: On this forum it is permitted to call someone a POV warrior and challenge their motivations, provided evidence is brought. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. (my emphasis) Well, this is an appropriate forum, so your claim that Nishidani violated ASPERSIONS by writing such things here, with evidence, is just plain wrong. But, in any case, you didn't even read him correctly since he didn't direct those comments at an individual but rather made a generalization about the area that anyone familiar with it would recognise. Exactly as he wrote in a reply you deleted. Zerotalk 16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To Debresser: "Later replies to other editor's comments (like this one), don't count towards the word limit." You are not correct, please read the restriction again. Personally I think that the accused editor should have more space than others, in line with natural justice. I also think that administrators who invoke the limit to delete refutations of themselves are behaving improperly. Zerotalk 07:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jonney2000[edit]

Nishidani is basically a good editor. I do not enjoy interacting with him because he is very aggressive. Over the years I feel that repeatedly it has been implied that I am a racist Zionist or just stupid.

The other issue is that I have a hard time understanding him on talk pages in that he uses overly long and overly sophisticated text sometimes mixed with broken English.

I do not want to see him punished, I just find it annoying.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

It would be nice if statements such as:

  1. 15:40 23 August Do you understand what you imply in stating 'most historical texts'? You are saying you have thoroughly mastered the literature. Nonsense, and in any case .... So stop the bullshit. It's tediously jejune in its nescience.
  2. 13:34 22 August writing the 'Balfour declaration was hardly the most central element' etc. is historically illiterate. Not only .... The rest of the obiter dictum is equally and ridiculously uninformed. Idiosyncratic evaluations of history have no placer here and shouldn't interfere with consensus making.

Would avoid claims on other editors (e.g. the extent of their reading on a subject).Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra[edit]

As for Debresser not wanting to "remove an opposing editor", just some info: a year ago I brought Debresser here, to AE, as he had called Nishidani and myself for "anti-Jewish", ie racist, and that is not a label I will accept.

Now, the interesting thing is that Debresser at once blamed .....Nishidani(!) for the fact that I reported him! See User_talk:Debresser#AE...even though Nishidani had asked me to "sleep on these things overnight and reconsider". (Hmmm, are we living in a Saudi world, where every female must have a male guardian who is responsible for her??)

Sigh, and we all do moronic edits at times....I once stupidly misread BCE for CE...(and therefor placed a whole paragraph under the "Roman era" heading). Debresser at once reported me to AN/I...before I could explain, or undo my stupidity. I would actually have preferred that he had called my edit moronic (it was) on the talk page ...instead of wasting everybody's time on AN/I..Huldra (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by E.M.Gregory[edit]

Encounters with Nishidani, often at AfDs on I/P articles, are marked by his aggressive, dismissive attitude towards fellow editors:

Statement by RolandR[edit]

Why is Nishidani restricted to a total of 500 words in response - and even threatened with blocking if he does not comply - when the original complaint itself is well in excess of 600 words? How is it possible to defend oneself against a lengthy complaint, and numerous other comments by others, without being given the space to do so?

If this rule is to be applied rigidly and consistently, then any initial complaint that exceeds 500 words should be automatically disallowed. And once the subject of the complaint has responded, it should be forbidden to raise any further points which require their response. Anything else creates an uneven playing field, and is unfair to the subjects of complaints. RolandR (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Nishidani[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • No action, I am more zealous about maintaining civility than most admins, but I can't construe [48] as "A highly uncivil edit, with personal attacks, a bad faith accusation, [containing] unbecoming language and general unpleasant and intimidating phrases and tone." The words "stupid", "moronic" and "what in the fuck" are ill-advised but are directed at the content, not the contributor, and are nowhere near the point where a sanction is anywhere near being warranted. And that's even with the lower-threshold mentioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Result_concerning_Nishidani, and even if that wasn't from 2 years ago. Fish+Karate 10:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The content dispute about Jewish or Arab identity etc. is irrelevant here, AE only cares about user conduct. Referring to a user's contribution (and therefore by extension the user) as "moronic" violates WP:NPA, and Nishidani's overlong wall of text does not address this. Moreover, in the now-removed parts of their response, Nishidani refers to the complainant as a "POV warrior[...] indifferent to source control, the proper application of policy [...] and whose purpose in numerous edits is to cleanse pages of anything that might trouble a nationalistic POV", in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. This is unacceptable conduct, and Nishidani has a record going back to 2007 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area. According to the AE log, the user has already had two one-month topic bans. I am therefore considering imposing an indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Calton: Because no misconduct by Debresser has been alleged here, their past record is not relevant. See, generally, WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, I think it makes a difference. If a complaint is brought by someone with a history of sub-par editing in that area, and/or is clearly an attempt to "remove" an opposing editor, then IMO our lines should be drawn a lot higher. Like the Volunteer Marek complaint just above, this request is both. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In my view, these aspects should only factor into an AE decision only insofar as concerns any sanction imposed on the complainant, but no evidence for any such sanction is being submitted here. We use sanctions to protect the community as a whole from disruption, not the specific complainant. Sandstein 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Fish & Karate, this behaviour, whilst obviously not ideal, does not rise to the level of a sanction, especially an indefinite topic ban. As F&K says, the invective is aimed at the content, not the contributor. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If we start indeftopicbanning for "moronic comment" we're going way too far. I do wish that Nishidani would take "overlong wall of text" to heart. It's a good thing I don't see a reason for a sanction in Debresser's complaint, because I can't figure out what Nishidan's defense is supposed to be. Word to the wise: focus on the issue. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The "moronic" as such wouldn't warrant sanctions, but the additional aspersions, as mentioned above, do. Sandstein 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am closing this without action at this time, given that I am the only admin that considers this actionable. Nonetheless, I will consider imposing a block or an indefinite topic ban, with or without any prior discussion, in the event of continued battleground-like conduct by Nishidani in this topic area. Sandstein 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

149.241.170.48[edit]

Blocked as a non-AE action by Ymblanter. Sandstein 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 149.241.170.48[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
149.241.170.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, edit-warring :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]
  6. [54]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

IP (and his new user account) keep restoring disputed, POV, speculative content based on unreliable sources. This is ARBPIA-related so he shouldn't be able to edit there in the first place. But even if it wasn't, he already broke 3RR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[55]

Discussion concerning 149.241.170.48[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 149.241.170.48[edit]

Statement by Ymblanter[edit]

I blocked the IP for WP:3RR for 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I also extended-confirmed protected Labour Friends of Israel, will log it tomorrow if I do not forget.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning 149.241.170.48[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Closing, already blocked. Sandstein 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון (et al)[edit]

Withdrawn, as it appears questionable whether the relevant article is under ARBPIA or not.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning יניב הורון[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBPIA: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

Previously blocked twice for arbitration enforcement in the ARBPIA area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Background: I removed a report by User:ThurnerRupert to WP:AIV earlier, where he was complaining about the reaction of User:יניב הורון who swore in an edit summary after being templated for vandalism. Since the templating was completely wrong, I felt that the reaction by יניב הורון was reasonable. However, this dispute has led to a small edit-war on that article, covered by ARBPIA, where both editors have broken 1RR. יניב הורון also appears to have broken 1RR on another article obviously related to ARBPIA, although that article does not have the ARBPIA DS notice (see above). I note along with this report that יניב הורון was unblocked (correctly) at 13:49 UTC today, since when they have reverted edits on twenty-three other articles, mostly in the ARBPIA area, many controversial, including seven in the first five minutes of today's editing (and I ignored the ones that were obviously typo fixes or vandalism reverts). I do start to wonder if this editor is a net positive in this area of editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Debresser:: What would you suggest I do instead? Ask someone else to file it? Ignore it? Anyway, you should be glad, as since you seem to appear I am biased at AE (yes, I saw what you removed [56]) you'll be glad to know that I can't act as a responding admin on this report, because I filed it. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz:: I'm not an expert on ARBPIA, but if I see the ARBPIA notice on a page, I assume it's under the sanctions. How else are we to know, as admins? Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

ThurnerRupert יניב הורון


Discussion concerning יניב הורון[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by יניב הורון[edit]

Statement by ThurnerRupert[edit]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

I just wanted to make a procedural note, that I am not happy with an editor who regularly comments on WP:AE reports as an uninvolved admin, starting to report editors himself. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

Poorly crafted report. Neither are ARBPIA violations. ARCA has ruled that Iran/Israel is not part of ARBPIA which makes the first set of diffs moot as it is entirely about the Iranian's PM comments on Israel. The second set of diffs is an enforcement of the general prohibition against an IP editor which is explicitely exempt from ARBPIA 1RR. Most of Yaniv's reverts are vandalism or reversion of extreme POV related. ThurnerRupert questioning the reliability of long standing content sourced to WaPo, Reuters, ABC, and no lack of additional sources being rather extreme. One should note Yaniv has been the subject of frivilous reports at AE and a SPI complaint (form a long dormant editor) which was false - he was unblocked after being blocked for false reasons.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR doesn't apply to IP/non-extended-confirmed users - WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction - "Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion". Iran/Israel is out of scope of ARBPIA per May 2018 ARCA.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: any user may place an ARBPIA notice on the talk page (e.g. - in this case - it was placed in 2012 by Shrike, who is not an admin). In many Iran/Israel pages it is there by mistake (or does not reflect the current ARCA/AE consensus) - and it has been causing some confusion. The talk page notice, however, has no relevance to enforcement of DS beyond saying that a user should be aware of its presence if editing - but one can apply DS also when it isn't there, and if it is there in error then it doesn't "bless" an article with ARBPIAness. The place an admin is supposed to look at is the DS log, or alternatively (as ARBPIA is framed broadly and doesn't require article level DS logging) judging whether the article is related. In any case - this particular article (and even more specifically the reverted content of Ahmadinejad calling to "eliminate the Zionist regime") is not ARBPIA per ARCA - as it is Iran vs. Israel without an Arab/Palestinian component.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning יניב הורון[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Activist[edit]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Activist[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Activist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 16:31, August 23, 2018 and 17:33, August 23, 2018 Content is first added by Activist in a series of two edits
  2. 17:44, August 23, 2018 and 17:47, August 23, 2018 I remove it and start a discussion on the talk page per the consensus required restriction on the article
  3. 08:39, August 24, 2018 Restoration of the content
  4. 22:52, August 26, 2018 Different content is removed by an IP editor per a previous consensus on the talk page
  5. 04:12, August 27, 2018 Restored by Activist without discussion
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

There is a consensus required restriction on this article. After the first violation, I informed the editor about the editing restrictions on the article on 19:57, August 24, 2018. This was followed by a second violation on August 27th in which the editor restored content that was removed after discussion. I asked the editor to self-revert a second time on August 27, but the editor has not self-reverted or responded. I am filing here because I would like the editor to self-revert - I don't want to confuse the situation further with back and forth reverts. There are discussions open for both of these edits on the article talk page.

The fact that Activist has still not self-reverted despite the talk page discussion is troubling. In the response to this complain he says without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence even though he was notified that the text removed by the IP I left a message on his talk page linking him to the discussion and asking him to self-revert several days before filing this complaint [57]. He has made several comments on the talk page defending the edit since this complaint was filed [58] [59] but still has not self-reverted.Seraphim System (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Activist[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Activist[edit]

I haven't been through this AE process before, so please understand that I'm trying to figure it out and try to bear with me.

I made a few reverts to this article without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence. In one case, I edited a statement about some trivia that I thought shouldn't be included in the article at all, but tried to preserve them despite my disagreement with their inclusion. I was trying to accommodate whatever editors had posted the existing text. The subject of the article, Brett Kavanaugh, was described as a "runner," and an "avid marathoner." and as having "ran" the Boston Marathon. In fact, Kavanaugh is a jogger as defined by Wikipedia*, rather than a "runner." In order to be allowed to run in that marathon, he would normally be required to post a maximum time for a qualifying race, 3 hours and 30 minutes for both the 2010 and 2015 races. That's a fairly slow pace. His actual finishing time in 2010 was "3:59:45," {a pace of nine minutes and nine seconds per mile, really a fast walk) which was described in the same sentence as, "under four hours," a redundancy. I eliminated the redundancy and provided some context to give typical Wikipedia readers a grasp on what the times actually indicated, including his age at the time of the 2010 race. (Runners typically begin to run gradually slower as they age, after their mid-30s.) Since I'd given his age for the 2010 race (always held on the third Monday in April, the Massachusetts holiday, "Patriots Day"), there was no need for me to include his age for 2015. His time there was "4:08.38," nine minutes and 29 seconds per mile/ six miles per hour, a slightly slower jog than five years earlier.) My edit has been accepted by other editors, it appears. Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Suggested two alternate renderings. One restored the redundancy (3:59:45) plus "under four hours." That sentence was followed by a sentence fragment.


I*(From Wikipedia)The definition of jogging as compared with running is not standard. One definition describes jogging as running slower than 6 miles per hour (10 km/h). Running is sometimes defined as requiring a moment of no contact to the ground, whereas jogging often sustains the contact.[2] (In other words, the jogger always has one foot on the ground.)'m terribly jammed for time. If it's okay, I'll add Statement 2 & 3 to address the other edits. Is there a time deadline for completing my response? Activist (talk)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Activist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.